Re: Tom Van Flandern and Newtonian Gravity

From: Dirk Van de moortel (dirkvandemoortel_at_ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com)
Date: 09/06/04 

Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 20:16:50 GMT

"Gerald Lasser" <antispam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:413cbc90.735543125@news.gte.net...
> On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 "Tom Van Flandern" wrote:
> >Yet your claim is that there is something wrong with what I wrote about
> >SR's coordinates and transformations. That does indeed come as a
> >surprise because I thought you knew that material and were familiar
> >with SR.

Gerald, thanks for isolating this - I didn't look at his message.

>
> I don't know what the original poster had in mind, but the referenced
> web page claims that (2) is the inverse transformation of (1), which
> is plainly false. The sign of v in (2) is wrong. Considering that this
> is just 4th grade algebra, the error is rather glaring. Do you agree
> that (2) is NOT the inverse of (1)?

If he really thinks that it is the inverse, he is criminally stupid.
Otherwise he is clearly deliberately misguiding his target
readers - for very obvious reasons (cfr. Geller, Von Daniken,
Berlitz, Han***...)
Anyway, the rest of the section is entirely based on (2)
being the inverse of (1).
If find it disgusting, and even more so than this one:
  http://metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/proof_files/proof.asp
Yuck.

Dirk Vdm

>
> Another valid criticism of the referenced web page is that it doesn't
> acknowledge that the argument presented there is just a regurgitation
> of Herbert Dingle's well-known fallacy. Yawn.

Quantcast